Allowed

Sh. Bhupinder Singh v. State

Delhi HC13 Mar 2024BAIL APPLN./3061/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order confirms the interim anticipatory bail granted to petitioners Bhupinder Singh and Ramesh Kumar in connection with an FIR under Sections 406, 420, and 34 IPC. The Court held that since the charge-sheet was filed without arresing the petitioners, who had cooperated in the investigation, there is no necessity for them to seek regular bail separately. The petitioners were released on bail s

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and surety bond of Rs. 50,000 upon arrest, with conditions to cooperate in investigation and surrender any change of address or mobi

Sh. Bhupinder Singh Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~5 & 6

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 3061/2020

¶4

SH. BHUPINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Satinder Singh Mathur and Mr Saurabh Pandey, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr Raghvinder Varma, APP for the State with SI Jitender Singh, PS Subhash Place, SI Ravi, PS Bharat Nagar. Mr Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Mr Gorang Gupta and Md. Imran Ahmad, Advocates for complainant. 6. + BAIL APPLN. 3720/2020 RAMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Counsel for the petitioner (appearance not given). versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr Raghvinder Varma, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶10

O R D E R % 13.03.2024

¶11

The present petitions have been filed under Section 438 CrPC seeking

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2024 at 15:35:36

¶13

anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0342/2020 under Sections 406/420/34 IPC registered at PS Subhash Place, Delhi.

¶14

While issuing notice vide order dated 13.10.2020, this Court had directed the petitioner to join the investigation and appear before the before the Investigating Officer.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have joined the investigation as and when they were called upon by the IO, which position is not disputed by the learned APP for the State.

¶16

On a query posed by the Court, the Learned APP on instructions from the IO, fairly submits that the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, have been filed and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.

¶17

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the offence committed by the petitioners is serious in nature and the interim bail granted to the petitioner does not deserve to be confirmed and the petitioners ought to approach the learned Trail Court for grant of regular bail.

¶18

This Court in Kashi Nath Shukla v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi¹ under similar circumstances had observed as under:

¶19

“16. …… It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had joined the investigatio n as and when required by the investigating officer. The charge-sheet is stated to have been filed and the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance vide its order dated 21.07.2023.

¶20

17. The very fact that the petitioner cooperated during investigation, the investigation was concluded and the chargesheet filed without arresting the petitioner shows that the custody of the petitioner was not required. Further, at no

¶21

1 2024 : DHC : 1412 [BAIL APPLN. 1758/2022 (date of decision 15.02.20024)]

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2024 at 15:35:36

¶24

stage the investigating officer asked for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position noted above, not only the present petitioner seeking anticipatory bail is maintainable even after the filling of charge sheet but there does not appear to be any necessity of asking the petitioner to separately surrender and seek regular bail.

¶25

18. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that once charge sheet has been filed, the anticipatory bail of the petitioner should not be confirmed without considering the charge sheet, is also devoid of merit. In support of the said contention no provision of law has been shown, nor that is the mandate of Section 438 CrPC. In view of the settled law that filing of charge-sheet does not affect granting of or continuance anticipatory bail, there does not appear to be any justification for the Court to examine the entire charge-sheet and the documents annexed therewith for confirming the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier especially when the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation throughout and did not misuse the liberty granted. Furthermore, when the charge-sheet has been filed, the normal implication would be that there was no occasion for the investigating agency or the police to require his custody .”

¶26

In view of the fact that the petitioners have joined the investigation and the chargesheet has been filed without arresting him, there does not appear to be any necessity of asking the petitioner to approach the learned Trial Court and seek regular bail after surrendering.

¶27

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event petitioner is arrested, he be released on bail subject to his furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a Surety Bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer /Arresting Officer further subject to the following conditions:

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2024 at 15:35:36

¶30

a) The petitioners shall cooperate and join the investigation as and when directed;

¶31

b) the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case;

¶32

c) the petitioners shall provide his mobile number(s) to the Investigating Officer;

¶33

d) In case of change of residential address and / or mobile number, the petitioners shall intimate the same to the Investigating Officer / Court concerned by way of an affidavit.

¶34

The petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶36

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶37

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶38

MARCH 13, 2024 MK

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2024 at 15:35:36

Sh. Bhupinder Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Bhupinder Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar Mishra Vs State of NCT Delhi

Nongmaithem Jashobanta Singh Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Vijay@ Veera Vs State (N.C.T of Delhi)

Dharamveer Goyal Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Varun Nirala and Ors. Vs the State and Anr.

Nitish Jaiswal Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.